Muslims and The West After 11th September

Reply Digit

Hai digit, a fine example of Jesuitical sophistry (I think that is the word?), taubah taubah!

``The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents...The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body.``

Boiling down to: conception means one thing generally (and certainly when we talk about Jesus Christ`s conception by Mary), but another thing when we`re talking about Mary in this particular case. Very slippery - Nixon must have gone to Catholic school!

Khair, excuse me, my protestant prejudices are showing again. :-) *blush *

Just out of interest, do you know what this Papist source of information of yours has to say about the immaculate conception of Jesus? Was he immaculately conceived or not? And in that case are they using the definition of conception given above, or in the more usual sense of zygotes etc.

Vaisai, apparently the verse in Isaiah which fortell ``Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emanuel...`` was widely mistranslated from the original Hebrew (by whom? dunno, but widely enough that the misapprehension is fairly extent). Where you see ``virgin`` above, the Hebrew version had ``young woman`` - so the Catholic version jives better with the original.

But then you have to cope with the cult of the saints etc. in the package...look, I am a small hearted person with little interest in the spiritual, so I`ll beg off there.

With, of course, a big hats off to you for your impeccable research.

`Nuff said?

Zafar

Tahmed 321

Esposito and Armstrong with write out of their deep Catholic faith - their writing is not in contention - at the end of my post I listed for you some writers - have you looked into any of their work??

Any way, not everything Muslims know or hold about their faith must come from foreigners or from other traditions - but for some people, it is preferable - below you can exercise both

Read Dr. muzaffar Iqbal`s article in today`s ``The News International``:

http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/index.html

then you may want ot read ``What is Koran``

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99jan/koran.htm

then you may want to read ``The Great Koran con Trick`` in the ``New Statesman`` magazine - unfortunately, this is not avalable on the web for free but you can read on the web or print it but it will cost a couple of $$

You should seriously examine the work of Patricia Crone - ``Meccan trade and the Rise of Islam`` also ``Hagarism: The making of the islamic World``

Please read these works in the context of our discussion about ``secular humanism`` and the manner in which this attack is being directed. Please pay speacial attention to the fact that some governments are subsidizing this work.

In response to Zafar Al-Talib,

*Sigh *

From http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm, the online Catholic Encyclopedia, we have:

(Start of quote)

In the Constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary ``in the first instance of HER conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.``

``The Blessed Virgin Mary . . .`` The subject of this immunity from original sin is the person of Mary at the moment of the creation of HER soul and its infusion into her body.

``. . .in the first instance of her conception . . .`` The term conception does not mean the active or generative conception by her parents. Her body was formed in the womb of the mother, and the father had the usual share in its formation. The question does not concern the immaculateness of the generative activity of her parents. Neither does it concern the passive conception absolutely and simply (conceptio seminis carnis, inchoata), which, according to the order of nature, precedes the infusion of the rational soul. The person is truly conceived when the soul is created and infused into the body. Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul.

``. . .was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin. . .`` The formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was excluded, it never was simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining in her soul to original sin, were excluded. But she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death.

``. . .by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race.`` The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism. Mary needed the redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt (debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam, should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ`s redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor.

Such is the meaning of the term ``Immaculate Conception.``

(end of quote)

`Nuff said.

-Digit

I cannot believe my eyes that it is the same Zakaria -- who used to write for Blitz -- who wrote this trash about Addul Kalam.

here I must apologize to Farzana Versey for questioning her quote of conversation she had with Dr. Rafique Zakaria who sounded more like a Mullah than an intellectual columnist.

Apparently -- old age has taken a toll of his senses, his intellect and the sense of balance

I cannot believe that Fareed Zakaria is his son.

Dr. Zkaria should put down his senile pen and take up Immamat of his local musjid -- he is right now no better than an illiterate Bukhari.

sattar2 (drumz)

(440)

Man. Thanks for a truly moving and positive post. I suspect we have little to fear in corruption. Maybe it`s entropy itself. Things fall apart. Take heart. It`s physics. Anything real can`t be threatened.

I think the human psyche underwent a major paradigm shift in the Christ image 2000 years ago. To me the message was clear. He was hung between two thieves. Opposites. He was stuck between lose/lose paradox. Screwed both ways only to suffer, and then, transcend by focusing on the Absolute. He solved the HUP - the two opposing sets of laws - heaven and earth - good and evil - dark and light, ad infinitum.Christ represents the reconciliation of the irreconcileable that lives in us all.

I finally had to take matters into my own hands several years ago to somehow visualize this reconciliation of opposing truths. How does it LOOK? Was it mathematical? I was obsessed. I settled on a simple experiment which produced a not-so-simple outcome. In fact, I was astounded. As it turned out, I didn`t discover anything new. It was known intuitively thousands of years before.

If you place a pencil mark in the center of a plain piece of paper, take any coin and make two opposing rules- one for heads, one for tails. Opposites. For heads make a dot, say, one inch to the right. For tails, make a dot one inch down. Begin flipping the coin and make a corresponding dot on the paper for each outcome. The more you flip the coin, the more impressive the outcome. One would intuitively think the paper would eventually be covered completely by the dots if one flipped the coin say, 500,000 times. I used a random number generator and computer instead. Easier. What emerges instead, in photographic clarity, is something called the Sierpinski Triangle. It`s a large triangle filled with hundreds of smaller, perfect, triangles. A trinity. Not one dot falls within ANY of the triangles. The Sierpinski is well known in advanced geometry and fractal structures as deterministic chaos. I find it mind-boggling. There are no accidents. It`s a fact. What appears to be randomness is filled with information.

There is also a Sierpinski set on a copper plate which was found in Rajastan about 50 years ago. It`s thought to have been made about 700 years B.C.

This stuff is fascinating in that they are geometric structures that were always there, long before humans, waiting to be discovered like the Himalayas or the Nile. The Trinity seems to be no accident.

More interesting, is that Islamic designs in architecture, etc., are quadratic - squarish geometric constructs. The subcontinent is a hotbed for this stuff. I came back with a lifetime of research.

Virgin Birth may or may not have literally happened. But the symbols and symbolism live in our minds as archetypes. I`ve little doubt that the human brain evolved analogically, differentiating between opposites and `transcending` to higher purpose, causing the brain to increase in size. In the last 2000 years the brain has increased in the greatest leap in size, several hundred cc. The Christ phenomena is no small (grey) matter:)

Sattar, I`m following your posts and transposing - they make great sense both ways. The sane emotional tone is not lost on me. When science finally recognizes that feelings are facts, religious or otherwise, there will be an abiding peace in the world. Allah Hafiz

hobbyty #490 ``Pattern of attack, by whom? By intellectual circles in the West and by those intellectual circles associated with the West.``

Such vast generalizations may be OK for shouting slogans in street demonstrations or in rubbish written by people like Maudoodi. They have no place in an intelligent dialogue. Even as a vast generalization, it is nonsense. Some of the finest explanations of Islam I have heard have been from western scholars like Esposito and Armstrong and others. And these are scholars whose books are best-sellers in the market and recognized by their peers. Name one - Just ONE - best-selling author in the west who attacks Islam.

Reply digit # 504

``The Immaculate Conception refers to the birth of Mary, and not of Christ. Not that it matters, but I just thought I`d bring it up.``

No. It refers to the conception, BY MARY, of Jesus, without all that vulgar genital in-out stuff. Hence immaculate. In fact hence immaculate conception - note: not immaculate birth.

Jesus` birth was actually the usual messy business.

Reply Scout # 501

``...maybe the simple explanation of it all is that Mary did have a little too much fun and got pregnant and her relatives claimed divine intervention (since anything else would be too scandalous)``

I`ll give you a hint. Mary was a gopi. OK? (Mary is actually Meera pronounced in a heavy Aramaic accent.)

In response to sattr2, who wrote:

`You have raised an interesting point, that perhaps the “immaculate conception” was really not “that immaculate”.`

The Immaculate Conception refers to the birth of Mary, and not of Christ. Not that it matters, but I just thought I`d bring it up.

And for God`s sake, why the need to justify a virgin birth in ``scientific`` terms? For one, this is loose-loose. If you succeed, then so much for the miracle...no biggie anymore now is it? If you can`t, then somehow omnipotent God is not so omnipotent anymore. Well that seems to be the general consensus although the logic completely escapes me.

So God can do something we can`t. And the point is?

Sorry, I just find it absurd that people have great affinity for the concept of faith in ``God``, you know the Lord of the Worlds and creator of the Universe, yet find it rather unfashionable to have faith in a God who goes ahead and does his God-thing from time to time. What`s a virgin birth here and there?

Take care, and don`t strain your brain.

-Digit

hobbyt #493
`` You have made my argument that “secular humanism” goes hand in hand with totalitarianism. You have also made my argument that “secular humanism” is a force that acts to destroy traditional institutions, in particular the family.``

hobbyt, not guilty, I have done no such thing :( I have also not mentioned ANY traditional institution except traditional religion.

hobbyt, why shouldnot I focus on Taliban as a sample expression of traditional religion, after all I sense you take Western society to be the definative expression of `secular humanism`.

``More precise language please, specifically, which “humanist vision” are you talking about? Who are the “so many”?

Why humanist vision of safeguarding Muslim women`s welfare ofcourse. And ``so many``, I mentioned 1 billion Muslims didn`t I?

``you may not know this but a critique of ascribing cultural norms prevalent in one particular country, place or time, to be the same thing as Islam is old news``

hobbyt, can anything be said about cultural norms of the one-billion-strong Islamic world (and ascribing it to relgion) in condoning the atrocities of the Taliban regime in the name of religion ?

``Had Americans not decided to unseat them, could such a statement be generalized?`` (Taliban`s religiosity being a total failure).

The Taliban`s relgiosity was a failure long before Sept 11, is there any doubt? Those women I mnetioned were raped and kidnapped or confined to their homes much before Sept 11, ever since Taliban came to power in 1996 in fact.

Dear Sattar Mian:

You write:

````Even today there are movements in various sects of Islam that advocate abrogating Quranic verses, but not one such movement has been successful.````(Sattar2)

And therein lies -- in that ``permanence`` -- the MUSLIM’S MISFORTUNE – therein lies the REASON for the social, cultural, political, scientific, educational, and moral STAGNATION of the Ummah for the past ONE thousand years – the Ummah -- like a “Kolhoo ka Bail`` -- with blinders -- going in circles and circles -- in the ever deepening RUT.



````Quran claiming divine protection and then surviving all attempts of modification is a very strong argument in favor of its divine origins. I cannot think of any other explanation here.````(Sattar2)

NOW -- that’s an extraordinary – overly protective – highly exaggerated sense of -- narcisstic SELF IMPORTANCE.

Means Muslims have a special ``Book lover``-- DIVINE ENTITY or GOD -- that is different from the GOD of Christians, Jews or Hindus.



Muslim’s God protects HIS book – the Christian GOD and Jewish GOD don’t care about THEIR Books.

Or the GOD of Muslims, Christians, and Jews is the same one – but compared to the older Bible and oldest Torah -- HE prefers the LATEST edition -- the Quran – the only problem with that argument is that the ``latest edition`` is a tiring 1400 years old.

And in turn that will assume another blasphemy that after GOD ``revealed`` or ``updated`` His ideas 1400 hundreds years ago – HE ran out of new material and went bankrupt on creative ideas – FOR EVER – naaoozobillah!!

The fact is Sattar Mian – If there is a ``divine creation -- and that is a big IF -- the MAN/WOMAN is the ``ONLY`` DIVINE creation of GOD --and in turn -- MAN/WOMAN created God’s divine religions and WROTE -- ALL Holy Books -- as ``DIVINED`` by the CREATOR.

GOD did not say his FINAL WORDS in Quran -- and did not fall asleep after Quran.

Through Man/Woman -- HE is still writing the Holy Books after Holy Books – only that now -- they are called QUANTUM PHYSICS – Particle Physics – General Relativity – Big Bang – and Parallel Universes.

If only the Muslims could RECOGNIZE and EMULATE the new PROPHETS.

They are called Einsteins, Max Plancks, Hawkins, Flemings, Khoranas, Chandrashekhars and Abdus Salams -- among thousands of others.

Eid Mubarak

Scout

Forgive me for butting in, but for what it`s worth, religion, traditional monotheistic religion is not about ``belief`` - it is about ``faith`` in God. ``Faith`` is the practice of love, in as much as love is charterized by trust, vulnerablity,commitment,humility,devotion,degree and by submissiveness. In the Quran, ``faith`` has repeated been characterized in this way and by belief.

``Faith``, like love, is waiting to happen or not; depends on one`s heart and head, grows, matures, demands of the faithful to learn and demonstrate trust, devotion, commitment, humility and submissiveness.

sattar2 #496,

ok, granted if `parthenogenesis` really happens at times, how does that fit into our `immaculate conception` theory. where does the claimed divine intervention fit in? if `parthenogenesis` caused Mary to give birth to Jesus, then every parthenogenic child is an equivalent of Jesus right? But no, that wouldn`t sit well with our buddies at the Vatican.

we can find explanations biologically, but the story behind Mary is about divine intervention causing the birth of Jesus Christ. unless, that is how God showed his divinity, by creating a biological concept called parthenogenesis?

maybe the simple explanation of it all is that Mary did have a little too much fun and got pregnant and her relatives claimed divine intervention (since anything else would be too scandalous), and then she gave birth to a great guy, who said great things, and did great things, and was nice to people, so much so, that they became his followers....there`s nothing wrong with that...as long as the guy was nice/kind/compassionate rite?

who knows...

Anyone I ever built with:

Yesterday I made some long azz posts to trillium, sattar, hobby, anny and others.

I do not have the time nor the PATIENCE to keep writing things over because they don`t make the ``editorial`` cut.

If any of yall wanna build with me, my mail is kakyze@hotmail.com

Goodbye.

dost-mittar #488,

ps: don`t get me wrong, i think religion (if used correctly) can work wonders for people. maybe the stories teach us morals, etc...

dost-mittar #488,

what is faith but a belief in God? every religion`s basic tenet is the belief in some supreme being or some supreme level... as for the word of God, i see the hand of God in everything in this world. now which do we believe? the word or the substance?

where do stories, myths, rules and regulations fit in? sometimes i seriously think it`s all a bunch of baloney. i`m being `blasphemous` again.

Scout (#481) and dost-mittar (#488):

You have raised an interesting point, that perhaps the “immaculate conception” was really not “that immaculate”. May be one fine day Mary had a little too much fun … and the rest is straightforward. This is indeed a possibility and should be looked into. On a slightly different note … earnest inquiries do not constitute blasphemy. Such inquiries should be encouraged so that we do not become victims of blind faith that cannot measure up to the realities of life.

My dilemma with the “not-so-immaculate-conception” explanation is that it addresses one issue, while raising more contradictions that remain unanswered.

My understanding is that Quran states that Mary was a pious and righteous woman, which rules out not-so-immaculate conception. Quran also supports virgin birth of Jesus. One way to reconcile these anomalies is through explanation that Quran is not a divinely revealed book, but rather one authored by a human (say Mohammad), who made things up and borrowed from earlier scriptures. And Mary was really a bit naughty, but Mohammad did not know about it.

This does not explain the hints of medical facts, scientific facts, future events, historical events, and more in Quran, which are not mentioned in other scriptures. An easy argument, also one of my favorite, is that Quran exclaimed that Allah is the Guardian over this Book. This claim of divine protection is not mentioned in any other earlier scripture. As I understand it, Allah did not assume responsibility of being a Guardian over Torah, and Jews were warned in Torah that they should guard their scripture. Since humans are bound to err and have limited means, there now exist various versions of Torah. Similarly, there also exist various versions of the New Testament, each one somewhat different from the other one.

For Mohammed to author Quran and claim that Allah is the Guardian over this Book, is making a claim that one knows will eventually be proven wrong. This will later jeopardize the authenticity of the entire Book. One would therefore stay away from making any such claim, if one indeed authors such a book.

Let’s assume that Mohammad did author the Quran, and decided to include the verse “Allah is the Guardian over this Book” … so that it immediately stands out over other scriptures … to add to Quran’s instant appeal to the people. This does not explain the fact that Quran has stayed in its original form, as revealed to the Prophet (pbuh) 1400 years ago. It is worth pointing out that historically there have been numerous movements aimed at changing the text of Quran … attempts at abrogating some of its verses … but interestingly enough, Quran has survived all such movements and stayed intact throughout the history. Even today there are movements in various sects of Islam that advocate abrogating Quranic verses, but not one such movement has been successful.

Quran claiming divine protection and then surviving all attempts of modification is a very strong argument in favor of its divine origins. I cannot think of any other explanation here.

One the issue of “parthenogenesis” you have made an interesting comment … that there has been no known such case. Does this mean “no known case” that was scientifically verified to be a case of parthenogenesis? I am not asking for a much here … just one or two “possible” cases … far back enough in the history of mankind that science could not put the stamp of verification on it … do you think you can dig into statistics, medical probabilities, human history and give me a couple, even one such case? It would surely help me solve everything under the sun … metaphorically, that is.

Actually, I need to read up more on this … but your insights will be much appreciated.

Best Regards,

Asad